delete_plugin

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important non-obvious side effect — that deleting a referenced plugin leaves that stack broken — which goes beyond what the name alone implies. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits: whether deletion is reversible, what happens if the plugin_id doesn't exist, or what the response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action and endpoint are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence carries the crucial risk warning and precaution. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple destructive tool with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, endpoint, key risk, and mitigation are all present. The only gaps are minor — no statement of success/error response format and no mention of reversibility — which an agent could infer from the POST endpoint and the existence of create_plugin/copy_community_plugin_to_local siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both plugin_id and plugin_source already described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to — the schema fully documents both required fields including the allowed values for plugin_source.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Delete a plugin from the server' — plus the exact HTTP endpoint. This cleanly distinguishes it from the many plugin-related siblings (read_plugin, save_plugin, create_plugin, verify_plugin, manage_library_plugin) without needing to inspect any of their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context and an explicit when-not-to-proceed condition: deleting a plugin a library's stack still references breaks the stack. It names a concrete sibling tool (list_libraries) to consult first. It stops short of a full 5 because it doesn't route between overlapping tools (e.g., using manage_library_plugin to detach a plugin first rather than deleting it outright).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.